Hi Astron,
On 03/03/2012 04:07 PM, Stefan Knorr (Astron) wrote:
Hi Matteo,
so, took me a while to find the courage to read that :) But good
observations these are.
Yeah, I was quite afraid of the length of my email :) Thanks for reading
it all!
Anyway, ...
Is this behavior the expected/commonly accepted one?
I would like to propose:
* left/right motion should not wrap around from first to last (or last
to first) item. Moving through lines is fine (behavior similar to
moving through text), although we can also just stay on the same line
and stop at its borders.
Makes sense to me. Although, of course the decision depends on whether
we want to make it fast to go to an arbitrary position without much
exactitude or whether we want to make it fast to go to the exact
start/end. Your proposal seemingly aims for goal #2.
Well, in this case my goal is to let the user see the content of
not-full rows without explicitly looking for it, and to move rapidly
from an item to another without too much corrections.
* up/down should not wrap around. If pressing up on a middle column of
the first line, then it moves to the first item. If pressing down, it
should move to the column below if present, to the last item
otherwise.
From my Western perspective that does make sense. However, I fear,
such behaviour might be unexpected in some cultures (that use
top-to-bottom scripts). Any experts?
Good catch. Also speaking from a Western perspective, I find it somewhat
confusing to be brought at the opposite side of the one I was moving to
(and columns can be long and involve scrolling, while rows don't
scroll). My point is that currently left/right let you navigate through
all the items, while up/down keys can leave a row "hidden".
* page up/down should mimic the behaviour of up/down keys: move in the
same column when possible (even if the distance is less than a page)
and, when pressed again and no motion in the current column is
possible, reach the first/last element. I don't know if disabling
navigation when key-modifiers are pressed makes sense.
Makes sense. I guess, modifiers should be allowed (but not modify
anything), in all cases where that's possible without unintended
consequences.
I don't know the original goals of that features: currently it seems to
me that if you use modifiers than nothing happens.
* If "none" item is present, then it could be accessed only from the
first item by pressing any of left/up (also page up/home ?) keys.
When selected, it can be exited only by pressing right/down (also
page down/end?) keys, but always lead to the first item.
Makes sense.
I'm less sure of this, now. If a wrap around for up/down is desired, the
current behavior of always passing through the "none" item probably
makes more sense. Unless we find a dedicated key to select that item,
which could solve the situation. Any idea?
* Return key behavior: at least it should not close the color
configuration window, but my guess is that's a misconfiguration of
the specific instance of ValueSet.
Not entirely sure about this one, although probably most people would
want to use Return and Tab the same way (i. e. to get to the next
widget and select a colour).
Wow. Too many things I didn't consider!
Honestly, my plans were to simplify code and provide a more consistent
behavior than the current one, that I find somehow confusing.
I guess we should wait for some hints on the desired up/down behavior
and then see how to proceed (if there's need to).
Thanks for your thoughts!
Matteo
Astron.
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.